I 627 

i 

192 
py 1 



Hawaiian annexation would weaken the power of our peoile and 
government.— James A. Garfield. 



The 
pjawaiian 

Annexation 



gclieme 



Junius. 

; J/5 - Q 




Why the United States Cannot HONORABLY 
Accept Hawaii. 

"Annexation" Neither Necessary Nor Advantageous. 

There are a great many objections to the ratification of the 
pending Hawaiian treaty, and they involve very serious con- 
sideration. The American people pride themselves upon 
their regard for national morality and honor, devotion to princi- 
ple and the rights of the oppressed. We fear there is an infrac- 
tion of all these in the proposition to seize the Hawaiian 
Islands. There^is so much surrounding this matter that we 
think itvery unfortunate if the Senate proceeds toconsider this 
particular treaty with closed doors. It is the rule of that body 
to discuss all treaties in secret session, but there is nothing sur- 
rounding the Hawaiian treaty that makes a strict enforcement 
of the Senate rule necessary, and there are many reasons why 
the doors should be open pending the debate. The American 
people are entitled to be fully advised of the arguments pre 
sented for this contemplated violation of that continuous 
policy of the United States which has rejected the British 
idea of colonial possessions ! 

If this treaty is righteous, it certainly can bear the light of 
day, and the reasons given should be strong enough to permit 
free criticism at the hands of the press and the people before- 
ratification. The whole world knows of the treaty. It has- 
been published verbatim. All the nations of the earth are- 
acquainted with its contents, and there are no diplomatic or- 
other reasons, making debate in the dark either necessary or 
fair in this particular case. The American people are enti- 
tled to know all about this ''job" before it is finally con- 
summated behind closed doors. They want to fully under- 
stand what advantage will accrue, and especially, what necessity- 
exists for the proposed cession of islands lying 2,100 miles away, 
that has not existed for half a century. Up to the present 
time the American people have heard but one side of the 
question, because the Hawaiian '' Sugar Trust " and Hawaiian 
politicians have filled the public press with all sorts of stories 
intended to inculcate false ideas and erroneous impressions. 
The American people are to-day unconsciously laboring under 
delusions concerning this Hawaiian matter. They have been. 



2 



saturated with almost every conceivable argument, thought 
or suggestion to bring about existing unsound mental and 
moral conditions. The avaricious Hawaiian ''Sugar Trust" 
has been abundantly able — from the enormous duties which 
the United States have remitted to that '' Trust " on Hawaiian 
sugar for over twenty years — to employ the best talent and 
the most imaginative and prolific writers, and the public 
press has been very liberal in putting the "annexation" 
scheme to the front in its most attractive form, as something 
which philanthropists should favor and which the truly good 
and patriotic should encourage. 

The President seems to have been brought to favor this 
treaty pretty much as General Grant was brought over in 
1869 to favor the San Domingo "job," but even the weight 
of the latter's great influence was not sufficient to break down 
the continuous policy of the United States to abstain from 
colonial aggression. The President wants the country to assume 
that the " annexation " of the Hawaiian Islands, as far away 
as Europe, is "the necessary and fitting sequel" to a chain 
of events in our policy; the " inevitable consequence " of our 
relations with those islands for seventy-five years ! We are 
compelled to challenge that theory. We assert that it is a 
mere assumption^ and yet this whole Hawaiian business is 
predicated upon that. We insist — what history proves, that 
the policy of the United States toward the Hawaiian Islands 
has been that of non-interference with their internal affairs and 
to resolutely maintain their independence. That necessarily 
precludes "annexation" as well as the domination of the 
islands by foreign nations. We assert that the proper au- 
thority of the United States has repeatedly and affirmatively 
rejected the covetous policy ; that in serving notice on foreign 
nations that they must abstain from Hawaiian control, we 
were acting without selfish design to ultimately absorb the 
islands ourselves. Any other view of the matter would cast 
reproach upon our foreign policy and lower the respect which 
nations are supposed to entertain of the United States. The 
evidence to sustain our contention is abundant to overcome 
the President's assumption and it will probably be fully laid 
before the Senate. A strenuous effort is making to overcome 
this insistent policy to which the United States have so stren- 
uously adhered. In spite of his own record. Secretary Sher- 
man asserts that the case of Hawaii is " exceptional," while 
those in charge of Hawaiian "annexation" in the islands, 
have sought to create conditions and thus force the case within 
supposed lines laid down by Mr. Blaine ! Does a conspiracy 
that overturns a lawful government with the aid of our diplomatic 
and other agents, and wrests Ha^^^aii from her people, make this 



3 



case exceptional ? Will that sustain a change of policy on 
our part ? 

We think it most unfortunate that in neither the letter of 
the President nor in that of Secretary Sherman is there' the 
slightest reference to the fact that Congress has a grave ques- 
tion of nalional morality to deal with in this matter ! On a 
certain occasion, a predecessor of Mr. McKinley did not 
ignore so important a feature where it was feared that it 
might, by possibility even, have some bearing on a cession 
of foreign territory ! And we think it also unfortunate that 
neither the President nor the Secretary offers any evidence 
whatever to show either the necessity or the desirability of 
annexing the Hawaiian Islands. The case should not have 
been left to the representatives of the Hawaiian Sugar 
Trust " to make out. 

When a nation approaches the United States as ''an equal" 
— to use the language of Secretary Sherman, and voluntarily 
offers to cede its territory and its sovereignty without price, 
we have a right to discover what may be its real object. There 
certainly must be some very material reasons for it, and they 
ought to be honestly, fully and fairly stated, in order to re- 
lieve such a weighty transaction of all suspicion that might 
otherwise attach to such a gift ! In this case the suspicion 
which certainly has attached is not removed by the preamble 
to the " annexation " treaty, which states that Hawaii is '^de- 
pendent on" and is in ''close proximity" to the United 
States. 

Hawaii is only dependent in the same sense that she has 
always been ; that we will continue to maintain her independ- 
ence as we have always done, and certainly islands 2,100 miles 
away are not in "proximity" to the United States any more 
than Ireland is, and the mere fact that we have their trade 
has no more force now than it has had ever since 1863— or 
even prior thereto, when we had four-fifths of the commerce 
of the islands. And while the further statement that — "the 
government of the republic of Hawaii " — desires annexation 
is conceded, it conveys deception, in this: that the so-called 
government of Hawaii is not a republic, but an oligarchy, 
as was frankly admitted by Chief Justice Judd of Honolulu 
last June in an interview in Boston. All this explains why 
we must look elsewhere than to the preamble of the treaty 
for an explanation of this proposed cession. 

There is no pretense anywhere set forth by either the 
President or Secretary Sherman that any danger threatens 
these islands, making it necessary for the United States to 
change its policy of maintaining their independence — against 
all the world ! Efforts have been made to alarm the country 



4 



with war scares," to excite national cupidity and a spirit of 
territorial aggression and thus hasten " annexation." But all 
that is the product of imagination. One moment we have 
been asked to assume that there was imminent danger of for- 
eign domination unless the United States annexed Hawaii, 
and efforts have even been made to have our flag again placed 
over the Hawaiian government building in Honolulu, and the 
next moment these attempts suddenly cease ! Time alone has 
exposed the deceptive character of these tactics, but they serve 
to reflect upon the morality of the cession; they involve the in- 
tegrity of the motive of those who are the prime movers behind 
the ''annexation" scheme, because there has never been a single 
moment in many years, when there was the slightest danger of 
any foreign nation seizing possession of or dominating the 
Hawaiian Islands ! The policy of the United States toward 
Hawaii for over half a century has been so well known and 
so firmly established, that no nation would contemplate menac- 
ing their independence, which the United States have guar- 
anteed and in which policy England and France joined over 
fifty years ago. When those two nations in 1843 — i^' 
stance of Daniel Webster, then Secretary of State entered into 
a treaty or protocol, wherein and whereby they agreed to 
consider the Hawaiian Islands — ''as an independent ^td^iQ and 
" never to take possession^ either directly or under the title of 
" protectorate, or under any other form, of any part of the ter- 
" ritory of which they were composed," and when the United 
States, through Mr. Webster, in the same year stated that the 
United States did not desire nor intend " to secure to itself tx- 
" elusive privileges in matters of navigation or trade, nor to 
"prevent any or all other commercial nations from an equal 
" participation with ourselves in the benefits of an inter- 
" course with those islands, seeking no control over their govern- 
" ment, nor any undue influence whatever, our only wish being 
" that the integrity and independence of Hawaiian territory might 
•' be scrupulously maintained." — a wall of defense was erected 
about Hawaii, stronger than any fortifications or any line of 
battle-ships, which no country — not even the United States 
should attempt to pull down ! That policy is indelibly im- 
pressed upon us as a nation ivitii the seal of time, and it effect- 
ually disposes of all the artfully conceived " war scares " is- 
sued to create artificial conditions and force " annexation." 
Hence some great advantage or serious danger or some great 
national necessity ^\\QM\di be made to clearly appear to warrant 
a reversal of this American policy that has obtained for half 
a century. 

What has recently happened, or what can probably occur, 
under our policy of half a century toward Hawaii that has 



5 



maintained and continues to guarantee its independence 
which makes it either necessary, advisable or advantageous 
to annex those islands? For instance as late as T894 the 
Senate unanimously adopted a resolution on Hawaii to "this 
effect — that ihe people of Hawaii had a right io establish and 
mainiain their oivn form of government, the United States not 
to interfere therewith, other nations not to intervene. (Cong. 
Record, 53d, 2d, p. 5500.) 

That was the doctrine of Webster and of all our statesmen. 
And on the 7th of February, 1894, the House of Representa- 
tives, by a vote of 177 to 78, adopted a similar but even 
stronger resolution. Why should there be a change of front ? 
The islands are safe ; their freedom from foreign control is 
guaranteed by us ; we have their trade as we always have had, 
because it is to their great advantage ; annexed, we would 
need to defend them at great cost and they really require no de- 
fense now. What then can be the real meaning of this move- 
ment ? Can it be free " sugar ? 

It is also misleading and deceptive to argue that it must be 
" annexation," a restoration of the monarchy. That would 
concede that the present oligarchy has not the moral strength 
nor the physical power to maintain itself/ But whether the peo- 
ple of Hawaii — who alone ought to control, desire a constitu- 
tional monarchy, or the oligarchy of the few sugar planters, 
is of no concern to us. What right have we to interfere ? In 
order to create a prejudice among the American people, the 
case has been argued as that of a "republic" struggling to 
prevent the restoration of a monarchy. Nothing could be 
farther from the truth and yet thai idea has deluded thousands ! 
We are surprised that our State Department presumes to call 
the oligarchy a "republic"! There are several aspects in 
which the constitutional monarchy of 186410 93 was far more 
liberal than the present oligarchy. But whether it be one or 
the other does not concern the United States nor justify our 
interposition to steal a government under the cloak of a con- 
spiracy, and consummate the job through "annexation" — 
without the consent of ihe people. The United States have never 
consented to the acquisition by cession of foreign terri- 
tory — inhabited by an intelligent people, without their con- 
sent. Alaska was ceded by a nation having the power to 
control it, but quite independently of that, Alaska had a mere 
handful of Indians, qualified to neither consent nor reject, and 
we are surprised to find Senator Morgan using Alaska as a 
parallel case ! Our republic ^as based upon the consent of the 
people, and we may not impinge upon that basic principle 
and fundamental doctrine — to please the Hawaiian "Sugar 
Trust." 



6 



It is of material import to note the fact that there are other 
considerations — involving the morality of this transaction, 
embraced in this Hawaiian treaty. The real object of those 
in Hawaii, who have long been concocting this annexa- 
tion " scheme, has been skillfully kept in the background. 
The proposed cession of Hawaii came from the State Depart- 
ment and the President hot-footed into the United States 
Senate during the pendency in that body of the Dingley tariff 
bill, which had been so amended as to suggest the same duty on 
Hawaiian sugar that it was proposed by the bill to lay on all 
other foreign sugar ! This is only significant of lahat the 
ultimate purpose of Hawaiian ''annexation" is. As matters 
have stood since 1875, Hawaiian sugar pays no duty ! The 
United States — under our " free sugar " treaty with Hawaii 
has remitted in duty since 1875 about sixty-six millions of 
dollars, and the duty on Hawaiian sugar per annum — under 
the Dingley bill, would be nearly eight millions a year ! 
That treaty has virtually expired, and when it was proposed — 
in the last Congress, to order notice to be given of its abro- 
gation and to levy a duty on Hawaiian sugar, the pending 
"annexation" treaty made its sudden exit from the State 
Department and the Executive Mansion, as if to head off duty 
on Hawaiian sugar / The tactics resorted to were successful ! 
With "annexation," the islands would become a part of the 
United States and of course no duty would thereafter ever be 
paid on Hawaiian sugar ! Thai is the electric button which 
many think the Hawaiian "annexationists" are pressing. 
We would not only pay ^4,000,000 of debt, but forever relin- 
quish ^8,000,000 of revenue a year on Hawaiian sugar ! And 
yet certain newspapers assume to call this proposed cession a 
gift! It is seriously asserted that "free" sugar is the mar- 
row in this whole "annexation" scheme ! It is a high stake 
to play for. "Annexation" would mean that large sums of 
money which should begin to flow into our treasu?y from duty on 
Hawaiian sugar are to be kept running the pockets of a feiv 
Hawaiian sugar pla?iters ! That feature of the proposed ces- 
sion cannot be eliminated and it has a very important bear- 
ing on the real purpose and hence on the morality of " annex- 
ation." The suggestion of cupidity casts suspicion upon the 
treaty. 

But there is a consideration of even more importance than 
any yet suggested and far superior to our right to revenue 
from Hawaii. The conditions to-day are practically the same 
as they were when the former "annexation " treaty was with- 
drawn from the Senate. It becomes essential to us, as a na- 
tion, to observe how the Hawaiian oligarchy, that now makes 
a tender of the Sandwich Islands, obtained its political right 



7 



and pretended iiile thereto which it now proposes to cede ! 
Thai is always a very serious matter to the grantee when he 
comes to take a deed ! Owing to certain facts,, now beyond 
dispute, the equitable right of the Hawaiian oligarchy to 
cede, but more particularly the moral right of the United 
States to accept, a cession of the islands fro7n those now in 
power, is open to very grave doubt / It so completely envelops 
this whole proposition as to make it seem strange that no al- 
lusion whatever is made to it by either the President or Sec- 
retary Sherman. The moment the United Stiies are asked by the 
oligarchy to accept a cession of the islands, it becomes impossible 
to ignore the morality of the proceedings that brought the oligarchy 
into power I Secretary Gresham in October, 1893, correctly 
and concisely stated the objection to the cession of Hawaii 
in 1893, and the same objection exists to-day. He said: 

The Provisional Government (now the oligarchy) was not 

established by the Hawaiian people^ nor with their consent or 

acquiescence, nor has it since existed with their consent. 

The Queen refused to surrender her power to the Provisional 
''Government (in 1893) until convinced that the Minister 
'* (Stevens) of the United States had recognized it as the de 

facto authority and would support and defend it with the 
''military forces of the United States, and that resistance 
" would precipitate a bloody conflict with that force. She 
"was advised and assured by her ministers and by leaders of 
" the movement for the overthrow of her government, that if 
" she surrendered under protest her case would be considered 

fairly by the President of the United States ! The Queen 
" finally wisely yielded to the armed forces of the United States 
" then quartered in Honolulu, relying on the good faith and 
" honor of the President, when fully informed of what had oc- 
" curred, to undo the action of our Minister (Stevens) and rein- 
" state her and her authority, which she claimed as the consti- 
" tutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands. After a patient 
"examination of the Report, the President was satisfied that 
" the movement against the Queen, if not instigated, was en- 
" couraged and supported by the representative of our Govern- 
^^ment; that he promised, in advance, to aid her enemies in 
" an effort to overthrow the Hawaiian government and set up 
"by force a new government in its place, and that he kept 
"this promise by causing a detachment of our troops to be 
"landed from the Boston on the i6th of January and by rec- 
" ognizing the 'Provisional Government' the next day when 
" // was too feeble to defend itself, etc. " (See House Ex. Doc. 
I, Part I, 53d, 3d, pages 1190, 991, 218, 768, 738, 633, 595. 

Mr. Stevens seems to have been so hot-footed in this scheme 
as to have recognized the conspiracy as a government de facto 



8 



even before the Queen had surrendered to the United States ! 
(See same Doc, pp. 526, 529, 228, 639, 633, 943.) 

The conceded facts and the treaty place the United States 
in the position of not only being asked to accept territory, 
the possession of which was obtained by duplicity, and the 
connivance of our Minister, leading up to and forming part of 
a conspiracy, but secured to the oligarchy through the unlaw- 
ful intervention and intercession of the naval forces of the 
United States I Such a title is inherently vicious. It would be 
morally rotten in the eyes of the civilized world ! We quite agree 
with Mr. Lorrin Ttiurston of Hawaii that it is a sound maxim 
of the law, that no individual may take advantage of his own 
wrong ; but no more should a great nation like the United 
States take advantage of the wrongful act of its own diplomatic 
and other agents to obtain the possession of and a colorable 
title to Hawaii, without the consent of the people ! 

The United States have never engaged in intrigue to secure 
foreign territory and they have never collusively aided others 
to seize possessions with a view of ceding the same to us. In 
fact, we have been very cautious and perhaps tardy in ac- 
cepting territory, even when taking it openly through pur- 
chase or conquest, while in the case of Texas we had the as- 
sent of the people, and there was a clause in the treaty of 
annexation with San Domingo making the consent of the in- 
habitants necessary and our warships protected the poll of the 
vote. It is likewise historically true that the United States 
have never conspired to secure possessions, and they have 
always rejected the British colonial policy, and for many good 
and sufficient reasons. It has never been our policy to ex- 
pand our national domain to embrace distant islands. Hence 
we have the most compact and therefore comparatively inex- 
pensive nation on the face of the globe. And above all, the 
United States have never accepted a foot of territory from 
usurpers or pretenders. Our action in either purchasing, or 
securing territory by war even, has been as free and open as 
day, preceded by neither connivance nor diplomatic de- 
ception, and hence the title to our entire territory is free from 
taint or shadow of suspicion. So it should remain. Let us not 
tarnish that record. It is far more important to us in pros- 
pectively dealing with foreign nations, than Hawaii. 

To invest a nation with the possession and sovereignty of 
foreign territory by voluntary and free gift, the grantee should 
scrupulously observe the title of the grantor. Title should 
be free from all taint or suspicion; there should be no cloud 
iLpon the same, and above all, there should be no evidence at 
hand showing that the nation which is (now) asked to take 
the cession, was, through its diplomatic or other agents, in 



9 



collusion to lodge in the Provisional Government " (now the 
oligarchy) by duplicity, trick, deception and force, the title 
to the thing which it is now proposed to cede ! Do the United 
States occupy that position in the case of the Hawaiian Is- 
lands ? Not upon the record. In fact the very ground, and 
the only ground upon which President Cleveland was propos- 
ing to restore the Queen, impeached the title now held by the 
Hawaiian authoriftes, and that renders it impossible for the 
United States to honorably accept the possession, and sover- 
eignty of these islands— the oligarchy / The assent of the 
Queen, but more especially that of the people, is an important 
requisite to make us a good title, and none other should be 
accepted, provided it is either prudent or necessary to depart 
from our traditional policy and annex these islands at all. 

Of course the facts become very important. The plan of 
the conspirators seems to have been not to appear before the 
Special Commissioner sent to Honolulu, the idea being that 
the facts would thus either be suppressed or disputable. At 
the outset it is important to note that Minister Stevens, as 
early as March, 1892, was evidently made aware that a con- 
spiracy v/as hatching to seize the Hawaiian Government. 
This is proven by his cautious letter of inquiry from Hono- 
lulu to our Secretary of State. He therein unfolds the prob- 
able plan which was likely to be adopted by the conspirators 
and asks for instructions — 

" If the government here should be snrprised and overturned 

by orderly and peaceful movement, largely of native Hawaii- 
" ans and a Provisional or republican (sic) government organ- 
''ized and proclaimed, would the United States Minister and 
" naval commander here be justified in responding affirma- 

tively to the call of the members of the removed government 
restore them to power, or replace them in possession of the 

government buildings? Or should the United States Min- 

ister and naval commander confine themselves exclusively 
^'to the preservation of American property, the protection of 

American citizens and the prevention of anarchy?" 

No unprejudiced man can rise from an intelligent perusal 
of that letter without feeling convinced that this ''annexa- 
tion" plot was incubating nearly a year before it culmi?iated, 
and that Stevens was fully advised of its delicate '^diplo- 
matic " details. 

The Executive of the United States has well said — 

Minister Stevens consulted freely with the leaders of the 
" revolutionary movement from the evening of January 14, 
1893. They disclosed to him all their plans ! They feared 
" arrest and punishment. He promised them protection / They 
''needed the U. S. troops on shore to overawe the Qiieen^ s sup- 



lO 

porters and her government ! T/iese he agreed to and did 
furnish! * * * The American Minister and the revolutionary 
leaders had determined on annexation to the United States, 
and had agreed on the part each was to act to the very end." 
,(See same Doc, pp. 594, 453, 455.) 

And the record further proves that had the Queen not been 
overawed by the use made of our flag and our marines (p. 
738-9), she having possession of the station-house, barracks 
and palace (p. 943) with ample forces, she would have throt- 
tled the conspirators (p. 1032, 1036, 1039), who in the garb of 
'^^ peaceable " citizens (p. 214) entitled to assemble, had really 
met to conspire and overthrow the government with the knowl- 
edge, if not connivance of our Minister^ who was to and did ask 
for the landing of our marines, without the consent of the 
Queen. In that way, and in that way only, the oligarchy 
peaceably" sneaked into position. Its members did not 
miss a meal — because it was the use of the power of the United 
States and not their own, which induced the Queen to surren- 
der. To avoid bloodshed with our troops, she submitted the 
whole matter to the President. In this she was following pre- 
cedents set by her predecessors, and that has some force. For 
instance, on the 25th of February, 1843, under pressure of 
British naval forces, the Hawaiian king ceded the islands to 
Lord George Paulet, subject to the decision of the British 
Government after full information" given of the facts. 
The British restored the islands to the king and it created a 
deep impression on the minds of the Hawaiians. (See same 
Doc, pp. 595-51-59.) Confronted as the Queen supposed she 
was by the forces and flag of the United States (pp. 208-218), 
Judge Wideman recalled this action of the English and Ha- 
waiian protests to the Queen to satisfy her that the ''Provi- 
sional Government" of 1893 — because brought to success 
through the forces and flag of the United States, would be 
repudiated by the United States when all the facts were laid 
before the President (p. 595). Mr. Damon made like repre- 
sentations. Hence her surrender, protest and appeal to our 
President (pp. 218-219). 

In 1849, when the French admiral landed his forces in 
Honolulu to secure reparation for some alleged infraction of 
international law, the Hawaiian king offered no opposition. 
He withdrew when the French Government had ascertained 
the facts. (See same Doc, pp. 72-75.) 

In the light of these precedents how can the United States 
honorably do less than the English and French did. Least of 
all can we accept the fruits of this conspiracy from the con- 
spirators. 

When the facts were all laid before our Executive he found 



ample reasons to attempt to save our flag from dishonor by 
withdrawing the treaty and asking the "Provisional Govern- 
ment" to give up their plunder. (See same Doc, pp. 1190- 
1191.) But he proceeded, only as far as his constitutional 
power permitted, to rectify a wrong (p. 1283). He never 
contemplated a restoration of the Queen by force (p. 1299). 

And he even attached humane conditions to whatever he 
might try to do, to set the United States right before the civ- 
ilized world, to which conditions the Queen reluctantly — be- 
cause of her oath of office, but finally consented (pp. 1242, 
1263, 1267, 1269). 

The " Provisional Government," so-called, refused to re- 
turn to the Queen her lawful authority (pp. 1275, 1282). 

The President could not constitutionally proceed farther, 
but he succeeded in clearly defining his idea of what the 
national honor of a great nation required, and thus the matter 
drifted into Congress. The American people have never un- 
derstood this matter. They have neither understood the facts,, 
the issue nor what was at stake. As the President well and 
truly said — ''The subversion of the Hawaiian government 
by an — 

" abuse of the authority of the United States was tn plain vio- 
lation of international law, and required the President to disavow 
" and condemn the act of our offending officials, and within the lim- 
" its of his constitutional power , to endeavor to restore the lawful 
"authority." (See same Doc, p. 1283.) 

As it stands to-day the American people are deceived I They 
have been skillfully played upon as one would play upon a 
flute ! They are the innocent victims of a sel fish lot of foreign 
sugar planters and their diplomatic agents, representatives 
and foreign newspapers. And this is so in spite of the fact 
that our people hate deception and duplicity ; and notwith- 
standing the fact that if there is anything the average Amer- 
ican citizen loves it is fair play. 

Since January 17, 1893, the so-called "Provisional Gov- 
ernment" of Hawaii set up by the conspirators, has given 
way to a self-constituted oligarchy which in no wise repre- 
sents the people, nor was it set up with their consent. To 
that, protest was promptly entered (p. 1316). Under these 
circumstances the United States are asked to regard Hawaii 
as a republic " and to treat with it on "equal terms"! 
It is one of the most remarkable propositions recorded in the 
history of international law. The assurance which it con- 
tains is only equaled by the cowardice that shielded itself be- 
hind our flag and our marines to set up the " Provisional 
Government." 

The facts become vitally important the momeiii the oligarchy 



12 

tenders the Islands to the United States / The oligarchy may- 
have ^' diplomatically" overconte the constitutional govern- 
ment of Hawaii, and be in a position to hold its spoils as 
against our Executive, but to attempt to make the United 
States a receiver of stolen goods — obtained through the inter- 
cession of our agents, is asking a little too much ! That we may 
not honorably accept ! 

Under a former Administration the attempt was made to 
thrust politics into this annexation " scheme. There was 
no good ground for this. In fact there was ample precedent 
for the sending Mr. Blount to Hawaii as a special envoy to 
develop the facts, just as such a commissioner was sent to San 
Domingo by General Grant, and still later he sent a commis- 
sion there which made a report. 

Much ado was also made over the ''flag" incident by 
persons who were poorly advised or dishonestly inclined. The 
methods adopted all through this Hawaiian business have 
smacked of the crafty conspirator intent upon deception and 
inflaming the minds of the American people. What are the 
facts about our flag ? 

Minister Stevens caused our flag to be hoisted over the Ha- 
waiian government buildings, after the " Provisional Govern- 
ment " had been set up ! (See same Doc, p. 404.) 

As well might our Minister in London set up our flag 
over the Parliament House. 

For the reason that // had no right there. Secretary Foster 
disavowed the act (Feburary 14, 1893), and it had to come 
down. As the Secretary well said, the hoisting of our flag 
over a foreign government building was placing the symbol 
of the power of the United States over the Hawaiian author- 
ity, and the act could not be sustained. (See same Doc, 240, 
242, 472 and 474.) 

The flag, therefore, was, to all intents and purposes, or- 
dered hauled down " by aRepublican Administration in Feb- 
ruary, and that order was simply executed hy a Democratic 
Administration April i. The American people have never 
understood this. 

The sham excuse of the conspirators to excuse their action 
in January, 1893, was that the Queen proposed to unlawfully 
promulgate a new Constitution (pp. 213, 227). 

There are complete and satisfactory answers to this pretext. 
First. Even if the Queen had conceived that idea, it was 
only because tlie people were demanding such action (pp. 581, 
848, 907, 909) in order to get a return of the suffrage (p. 581) 
and the power extorted from them under the Constitution of 
1887 which the sugar oligarchy had forced upon the King 
(pp. 576, 10T9). Second. The Queen concluded not to pro- 



13 



mulgate a new Constitution and timely informed the conspi- 
rators of the fact (p. 228,582). Third. Her original inten- 
tion was a liberalizing one and in marked contrast with the 
disfranchising /^j/ oath clause (100) in the so-called Consti- 
tution of the oligarchy (p. 1339). 

These statemen s are so closely interwoven with the oli- 
garchy that they seem necessary to an intelligent idea of 
the subject, but the pivotal point is that a title impeached by 
our own Executive act in 1893-4, cannot be said to be cleared 
by the mere force of votes in Congress, exploiting a new 
political policy largely based upon sentiment at home 
and the cupidity of interested sugar planters abroad. That 
the title now held by the Hawaiian oligarchy is tainted — in so 
far as that the United States may not honorably accept it from 
the oligarchy, was proven, after full investigation, in the re- 
port made to the Executive by our own special Commissioner 
sent to the Islands to develop the facts. That report has ample 
evidence to support it. In a suit between the United States, 
the oligarchy, and the Queen or Hawaiian people, a court 
of equity would set aside a deed of these Islands made to the 
United States by the oligarchy, as collusively obtained by and 
through the connivance of our own agents ! 

That is the test of our moral right to accept the cession. 
Of course we have the power to take the deed — even from an 
oligarchy, but we would be forever concluded thereby to 
criticise similar acts or like seizures by other nations which 
the American people have not been slow to condemn. 

That our diplomatic and other agencies did interfere in 
Hawaii is fully established by the following from the message 
of our own Executive, December 18, 1S93 — 

''The lawful government of Hawaii was overthrown, by a 

process, every step of which, it may safely be asserted, is 
*' directly traceable to and dependent for its success upon 
^' the agency of the United States through its diplomatic and 

naval representatives." 

And much more to the same effect. As against those in 
Hawaii who are and ever have been protesting against spolia- 
tion, the United States cannot gainsay the admission of its own \ 
Executive. It is not impeachable. It stands forth on the > 
record made up by the United States itself. It will be seen 
at once, that this is not a question of restoring the monarchy — 
the present political status quo in the Hawaiian Islands may 
well remain, but when the United States is asked to accept a title, 
tainted because of the collusive acts of its own agents, a very 
different question arises! Nor need we depend alone on the 
message of the Executive of December, 1893, to show why. 
Secretary Foster's letter of January 28, 1893, replying to that 



14 



of Minister Stevens informing the Secretary of the latter's 
hasty recognition of the '^Provisional Government," clearly 
indicates what he thought was necessary. He says— 

" Your course in recognizing an unopposed de facto govern- 
ment, appears to have been discreet and in accordance with 
the facts ! The rule of this government has uniformly been 
to recognize and enter into relations with any actual gov- 
ernment in full possession of effective power with the assent 
" of the people / " 

Those conditions did not exist in January, 1893 ! The only 
reason the conspirators were unopposed " was that the 
Queen was artfully and deceptively led to suppose that she 
was menaced by the authority of the United States and she sur- 
rendered — not to the Provisional Government, but to our flag 
and our forces, until the matter could be investigated. Nor 
was the Provisional " cabal in Hawaii an actual " govern- 
ment having effective " power with the assent of the peo- 
ple." There has never been any such a pretense ! The moral 
question remains just where it was placed four years ago by the 
oligarchy itself. Time cannot eradicate it. 

The claim of the oligarchy is thus stated by Mr. Lorrin 
Thurston — 

''The fact that the United States Minister — with or with- 
" out the authority of his government, 77iay have trespassed 
" upon the international rights of Hawaii (/. e. the Queen) 
" does not thereby confer jurisdiction upon the government 
" of the United States to now again and deliberately trespass 
" upon such rights," /. e., upon the rights of the oligarchy, a 
de facto or de jure government ! (See House Ex. Doc. i, Part 
I, p. 440, 53d, 3d.) 

No need to discuss that question. The point is, that enough 
is stated and conceded to show that the title, possession and 
sovereignty thus seized, obtained and held without the consent 
of the people and against the wish of their lawful sovereign, 
was obtained through the complicity and connivance of the diplo- 
matic agent and forces of the United States/ It was only be- 
cause of that intervention that the plot was successful ; else 
there were no pretense now of power to transfer the Hawaiian 
Islands by the oligarchy. In plain words Mr. Thurston's 
language comes to this, that even if Stevens did cause our flag 
and our marines to be deceptively used to establish a revolu- 
tionary government and overthrow a lawful ruler, yet being 
in possession, the oligarchy insists that it cannot be ousted 
nor the Queen restored by the United States. Morality and 
justice are thrown to the winds. It is tantamount to saying 
that the "job" was well planned and conceived to dupe and 
deceive, and even if its success depended on the dishonorable 



^5 



use made of the American flag and marines, the oligarchy 
has the advantage of possession and proposes to keep it. In 
other words the oligarchy says to us, our conspiracy was a 
diplomatic success — in so far as that the United States may 
not now interfere to oust us. It argues that the President of 
the United States may not use force or make war upon it ; 
Congress only has that power ! That is the reason this oli- 
garchy has remained in power. 

Now concede all thai is thus said, and ii does not go far | 
efiough. If those who stand upon this slippery ground were ! 
asking nothing more than to be 'Met alone," the United \ 
States might rest upon its recognition of the status quo, but § 
the trouble is — and herein is the inherent or structural weak- \ 
ness of this ^'annexation'' scheme; the oligarchy now asks r 
the United States to accept from it a title thus obtained I \ 
A title — the possession of which could not have been i 
seized or possessed save by the misuse made of our fag and f 
our forces/ 77^^z/ title the United States cannot honorably |. 
accept ! That is the real issue as annexation is now presented I J 
Mr. Thurston overlooks it. When a government in Hawaii | 
comes to the United States with clean hands and the assent of | 
the people, the United States will be in a position to listen, ^ 
but not until that time. Jackson — in the case of Texas, ad- | 
verted to the morality involved in that proposed cession, / 
in his message of December 21, 1836 — 

The title of Texas to the territory she claims is identified 

with her independence ; she asks us to acknowledge that 
"title to the territory with an avowed design to treat imme- 
" diately for its transfer to the United States. It becomes us 

to beware of a too early movement, as it might subject us, 

however unjustly, to the imputatiofi of seeking to establish the 
" claim of our neighbors to territory, with a view to its subsequent 
" acquisition by ourselves ^ 

In that case neither the United States nor its diplomatic or 
other agents had, at any time or in any way, interfered with 
or connived at the independence of Texas, and yet we see 
how scrupulously observant our Executive then was of the 
fnorality of a transaction involving the independence of a 
country, which was something very much less than a cession 
of territory ! The moral sense of Presidents may have since 
become blunted, but that of a great nation remains acute. Aside 
from the collusion of our Minister to bring about the success 
of the " Provisional Government " in Hawaii by the decept- 
ive use of our flag and marines and the premature recog- 
nition of the same, we have — in the proclamation issued by it, 
the express acknowledgment that at its ve7 y inception, it was — 
''established" (2) to exist until terms of Union with the 



i6 

United States of America have been negotiated and agreed upony 
(See House Ex. Doc. i, Part i, p. 210, 53d, 3d ) 

Does any person suppose for a single moment that had our 
diplomatic and other agencies interfered — as they did in 
Hawaii, to overthrow Mexican authority in Texas, and had 
set up the Texas government through our intercession^ that 
Jackson would have listened for a second to an acceptance 
of territory thus obtained ! With no such element existing, 
the United States declined to accept the cession of Texas 
until ei^ht years after Jackson wrote, and then it came to us 
with the assent of the people through convention, and not from 
an oligarchy that has established its right in Hawaii solely 
through the collusion and connivance of our Minister and 
the use made of our flag and our naval forces ! 

An American Congress should hesitate a long tifne before 
accepting Hawaiian title as now tendered! The national 
honor and good morals are involved in this annexation " 
scheme ! It is the first question to which Congress should 
address itself. All other considerations, if important, are 
subsidiary. Two things stand self-confessed and unimpeach- 
able — 

1. The unlawful interference of our Minister and our ma- 
rines that made a conspiracy successful ; 

2. The treaty proposes that the United States accept the 
fruits of that conspiracy. 

The status-quo is in no v/ay involved so long as Congress 
shall refuse interference to restore the old order of things. 
The rehabilitation of the monarchy is not in issue. The pres- 
ent oligarchy — according to Secretary Sherman, represents a 
^'firmly established" state. The rejection of " annexation " 
will not sacrifice the independence of the islands to which policy 
the UnitedStates has long been committed, and hence all dan- 
ger of foreign domination can be dismissed. It is a bogie man 
that alarms no one. Nor should we, through annexation — 
without the consent of the people, rob them of the right to 
govern thefftselves . 

There can be no sort of doubt, that the United States, it- 
self a republic, based upon the consent of the people, should in- 
sist that any cession of Hawaiian territory should have the 
assent of a majority of the people of the islands, and not merely 
of the few who, from our remission of duty on their sugar, 
have been able to lay by dollars and cents in Honolulu ! In 
his letter to Mr. Culver of November 19, 1862, Secretary 
Seward said — ''A revolutionary government is not to be rec- 
" ognized until it is established by the great body of the popu- 

lation of ihe state it claims to govern." (Wharton, Vol. i, 
• 542.) 



17 



Thai is sound republican doctrine, and it seems hardly neces- 
sary to add anything to support it. The consent of the people 
is the cornerstone of our own republic ! A mere handful of 
revolutionists or conspirators — aided by deception, trick and 
the moral, yea actual force of the United States, ousted a 
lawful ruler and, seizing possession, they now offer to cede 
title to the territory thus obtained to the very nation whose diplo- 
matic agents connived at the usurpation, and obtained the posses- 
sion for the grantor against the consent of the people ! The 
nation thus situated — to whom the tender is now made, cannot 
honorably accept such a title ! 

It is undoubtedly true, as stated by the President, that, as 
a mere naked proposition, the proposed cession of Hawaii, 
is not a *'new scheme," but it is equally true that there are 
certain matters surrounding ''annexation" as now presented, 
that find no warrant in national morals. The effort made in 
the papers accompanying the treaty to the Senate, to dress it 
up as a new proposition and excuse the defeat of the prior 
treaty, evinces a consciousness that the present one needs sup- 
port. The indirect attempt to show wherein that treaty was 
weak, unconsciously discloses the frailty of the pending one. 
These things are not only manifest but painful. The treaty 
of 1893-4 was withdrawn, no so much for the reason so diplo- 
matically adverted to by Secretary Sherman — because both 
treaties came from the same Hawaiian parties, substantially, 
but for the reason that a full investigation revealed the fact 
that — "the lawful government of Hawaii was overthrown by 
" a process, every step of which was directly traceable to and 
^'•dependent for its success upon the agency of the United States 
'' acting through its diplomatic and naval representatives." 
(House Ex. Doc. i, Part i, 53d, 3d, p. 219, 455, 738, 768.) 

That was the allegation of our own Executive, and the peo- 
ple of Hawaii who are objecting to annexation and have pro- 
tests on file, have a right to \ns\s\. that the allegaiion is true. 
That situation remains unchanged. Thus an issue was formed 
and it remained untried and undisposed of at the time the 
pending treaty came into the Senate. As between Congress 
and the Hawaiian people objecting to "annexation," Con- 
gress may not impeach our own Executive / It is true that an 
incoming Executive has the political power to ignore so grave 
an executive statement, but an exercise of that power will 
not — in the eyes of the civilized world and the American peo- 
ple, wipe out the fact that a ratification of this treaty in 
which the oligarchy is the grantor, will violate national honor 
and morality, leaving the grave accusation of our own Execu- 
tive on record, undisturbed, to forever condejnn the act. 

There is not only no precedent in our country for the con- 



i8 



templated cession, but annexation is objectionable for another 
reason. The history of Hawaii is quite replete with evi- 
dences of a higher sense of honor, honesty and fair play than 
is here exhibited. For instance, when the Sandwich Islands 
were ceded to Great Britain, conditionally, in 1843, ihe Eng- 
lish were prompt in disavowing the act of their Admiral. (See 
House Ex. Doc. i, Part i, p. 51-59, 53d Cong., 3d.) 

A few years after, when the islands were ceded to the 
United States, as against France, which was complaining of 
treaty infractions, our Secretary of State, Daniel Webster, 
ordered the deed returned to the Hawaiians. (See same Doc, 
p. 91-102.) 

Still later, under the administration of Mr. Pierce, when 
the islands were about to be conditionally ceded to the 
United States because of internal commotions therein. Sec- 
retary Marcy was very careful to regard Gregg's proposition 
as a measure — " proposed by the people,'' in which the rulers 
were disposed to concur. (See same Doc, p. 122.) 

And later still, the consent of the people was evidently re- 
garded as requisite by Secretary Seward. (See same Doc, p. 
I43-) 

It is a stock argument to talk about American capital " in 
Hawaii, but it went there voluntarily — escaping taxation at 
home; it ventured upon foreign soil in search of sugar profits 
and has gathered volume. It took all the risks incidental to 
the form of government and its uncertain tenure, and it has 
no other claim upon us than other similar enterprises have, 
entered upon by our citizens in other foreign countries, which 
must always be undertaken at their own risk and subject to 
the existing laws of those nations— including internal commo- 
tions. (See I Wharton, p. 545-6.) 

It is likewise true that this so-called American capital ca^ne 
from sugar raised on Hawaiian soil, and hence is really " Ha- 
waiian capital." Millions have been borrowed also of the 
English and Germans. (See House Ex. Doc. i. Part i, 53d, 
3d, p. 919-921.) 

There is a great deal of American capital in Cuba, but no 
one would place a proposition to ''annex" Cuba on that 
ground. Are we to throw special favor around capital that 
deserts our shores and evades home taxation ? Are we to hold 
'' the sack " for capital employed abroad? 

Secretary Webster answered this very old and musty argu- 
ment in 1851, when our Commissioner Severance, at Hono- 
lulu was plying him with it. He said — 

''You inform me that many American people have gone to 
"settle in the islands; if so, they have ceased to be American 
''citizens. The government of the United States must, of 



19 

course, feel an interest in them not extended to foreigners, 
but by the law of nations they have no further right to de- 
mand the protection of this Government." (See same Doc, 
p. 90-102.) 

The status of persons who go abroad from the United States 
to make money ; who become residents in foreign lands, pay 
taxes there and not h^re, who in no way contribute to the main- 
tenance, support or defense of this government, who exercise 
the suffrage abroad and not here, is well defined. They can- 
not claim ''diplomatic" intervention in their behalf. As 
Secretary Webster well said, they have ceased to be American 
citizens. (Wharton's Digest, Sec. 176.) 

They have voluntarily placed themselves within the power 
and jurisdiction of Hawaii ; have subjected themselves and 
their property to its laws. 

The crafty scheme of denization " in Hawaii only con- 
cerns or affects their status in Hawaii, not here. There is no 
mode of express renunciation of citizenship; a change of 
domicile, long continued, with family and effects is sufficient 
manifestation of intent, however. 

As an intelligent and unprejudiced gentleman, who care- 
fully examined this whole Hawaiian business, well observed — 

''Certain men, without throwing off their allegiance to the 
"United States, have secured 'denizen' rights in Hawaii, 

gobbled up the lands of the natives, deprived them of suffrage, 
" seized their government and propose now to sell it.'*'' 

We have adverted to the ignominious failure of the St. Do- 
mingo annexation scheme in 187 1. We also recall the prop- 
osition to annex St. Thomas and St. John's Islands in 1868; 
and yet these separate "schemes," with the powerful support 
of such men as General Grant and of Secretary Seward, failed. 
It is not the American policy to invite or attach people of all races 
from the tropics and incorporate them in this great Ameri- 
can system ! We recall the reasons advanced by General Gar- 
field in his speech objecting to Hawaiian annexation ! They 
are unanswerable. In the case of Samoa, we have limited 
ourselves to the purchase of a naval or coal station, with a 
sort of tripartite protectorate to which the United States, Ger- 
many and Great Britain are parties. 

Lorrin Thurston, and those who argue with him, assume that 
the native Hawaiians have no concern in what shall be done ; 
no voice that should be listened to \ no rights that the white man 
is bound to respect J For four long years those who had always 
ruled and who — being in the majority, had and have the 
right to govern Hawaii, have patiently awaited from our Con- 
gress some reply to their petition for the redress of a griev- 
ance. Our Executive was powerless, under the constitution. 



20 



to place the Queen back even if there had been no seniimental 
opposition among the American people to the rehabilitation 
of the constitutional monarchy which the people of Hawaii 
had chosen as their form of government ; a government which 
neither the United States nor any other nation had the right 
to overthrow, directly nor indirectly, through a conspiracy in 
which our diplomatic and naval agencies were too prominent, 
and without whom it could not have succeeded. Patiently, 
and perhaps hopefully, the Hawaiian people have awaited 
from Congress an answer to their appeals lodged with our 
Executives. They have thus exhibited the highest evidence 
of civilization. They have declined to in any way recognize 
the oligarchy set up by the conspirators and especially by 
their neglecting and refusing to vote, because it was the evi- 
dent design of those who employed the test oath to invite 
them to exercise the suffrage and then to use it as an argument 
thai they had thereby given recognitioft to the oligarchy/ This 
ruse has not been successful. The Hawaiian people have no 
fear of Japanese or other foreign domination ; on the other 
hand the oligarchy sees ghosts on every side; every bush in 
Hawaii conceals an imaginary foe ; fancied danger springs 
up on every side as the oligarchy contemplates what it has 
done, but nothing intimidates it more than the fear of justice 
— long delayed. Before that phantom flit sugar profits and 
political elevation into obscurity, while the ^'annexation" 
wail is wafted on every breeze from Honolulu to Washington. 
One would think the fate of this nation hung upon the 

annexation " of Hawaii. Peaceful Hawaiians are now — 
even while awaiting an answer at the hands of a great nation, 
told that they have slept upon their rights. Because they 
have refused to forcibly assert themselves ; because they have 
pursued that Christian policy of forbearance embodied in the 
''English arbitration" scheme, and because they have 
neglected to precipitate a civil war upon Hawaii, they are 
told by Secretary Sherman that in view of all these things and 
because they have refused to recognize the oligarchy by vot- 
ing, therefore there is a " republic " in Hawaii with which we 
may treat on equal terms — for the transfer of the islands ! 
We are amazed at the want of moral perception which the treaty 
and the papers submitted with it, embody. And it is also of 
serious notice that so long as a treaty is pending, interna 
tional law would not have warranted an overt act on the part 
of the Hawaiians to restore themselves to power ! They have 
pursued the only policy open to them. 

And what is to become of the Monroe doctrine? Already, 
and before this Hawaiian scheme is consummated, it is stated 
that — " the Hawaiian annexation question is receiving some 



21 

consideration among the German people. The Germans 
think that the bulk of the money invested in Samoa has 
come from them, therefore Germany has as much right io 
absorb Samoa as Uncle ISam has lo take in Hawaii. They think' 
that Germany should be allowed to take Samoa without in- 
^' terference on the part of the United States. This they 
deem a simple matter of fairness and justice." 
Are we to open Pandora's box of colonial acquisition in the 
face of Hawaii's protest, and not only violate a tenet of repub- 
lican faith but a continuous and insistent policy of this gov- 
ernment, simply to annex islands 2,100 miles away? Would 
we be justified in trading away or even endangering the stability 
of so important and far-reaching a policy as that advanced by 
Mr. Monroe, to attain a sentimental advantage in the North 
Pacific, equally available to Germany in the case of Samoa in 
the South Pacific? Why, after a century of peace, venture 
upon uncertain if not disputable ground ? The famous line of 
protest promulgated by Monroe and made a part of our na- 
tional faith and recognized by foreign nations, did not stop 
at a denial of the extension of foreign domination and ag- 
gression of colonies and States on this side of the Atlantic 
not then already possessed or governed by European nations. 
It embraced a defensive policy on our part. Under it we may 
interfere to defend, but not under cover of thai policy covet or 
take to ourselves, and especially against the will of th'e people 
concerned, that which we deny to others. We can readily 
conceive how the annexation " of Hawaii — without the co7i- 
sent of the people of the islands, might please England and 
other nations, and Spain as well, and yet work to our serious 
disadvantage in the near future. We may need a vigorous 
application of the Monroe doctrine much nearer home than 
Hawaii, sooner than we are now able to discern. We surely 
ought not place the full force and common understanding of thai 
doctrine in dispute I 

Mr. Thurston manifests a very poor conception, too, of the 
intelligence of the American people, not at all complimentary 
to a nation of which he is asking favor, when he talks about 
the necessity of our possessing Hawaii for defense. The islands 
lie 2,100 miles away from San Francisco. It would take a 
battle ship stationed at Honolulu a short week to reach a point 
of attack on the Pacific coast ! As well talk about stationing 
war vessels at Liverpool to defend Boston or New York ! The 
fact is that instead of Hawaii being defensive of our coast— it 
would require a very large expenditure to defe?id Hawaii itself. 
and // requires none now diS an independent nation. The sixty 
millions of dollars of duty already remitted on Hawaiian 
sugar by the United States since 1876 would long ago have 



22 

placed ample fortifications and battle ships on the Pacific 
coast to have effectually defended it from any ordinary attack, 
and the eight millions per annum of duty on sugar that would 
be forever remitted by " annexation," would — in a very few 
years, cover all the cost of the war vessels and fortifications 
necessary to insure as good a defense of our Pacific coast as 
it is possible to make. Independently of all that, however, 
we already have right and title to Pearl River harbor, the 
only naval refuge in the islands, of any account, and we do 
not quite see how " annexation " would increase our oppor- 
tunity to further advantage ourselves from a naval standpoint. 
We bought that harbor and it has cost the United States up- 
wards of ^40,000,000 of money in duty remitted on sugar. 
We cannot therefore explain the suggestion advanced that 
Hawaii would be a defensive point upon any other hypothesis 
than that its authors feel hard pressed for better argument. 
They certainly put a low estimate upon the sagacity of an 
American Congress, as they seem to assume that the Ameri- 
can people are mere sentimentalists on the Hawaiian question. 

This annexation " sentiment is 2, ^2>.Vi%^xoMS national mi- 
crobe of unlimited power if once left to prey upon a people 
easily amused with new ideas. We have wisely confined the 
extension of our domain, thus far, to practically contiguous 
territory which has given the United States great strength 
and solidity. It is the part of .prudence — and of economy as 
well, to continue that policy. It is already asserted that a 
number of merchants and sugar planters of Spanish origin, 
in conjunction with several Cubans of prominence, have been 
holding secret meetings and corresponding with people in 
various parts of Cuba with the object of ascertaining the 
views of the commercial and planting community of Pinar 
del Rio, Havana, Matanzas and Santa Clara provinces as to 
the future for Cuba most likely to further their interests and 
those of the island in general. 

It is expected that the majority of the replies will be fa- 
vorable to "annexation" of Cuba to the United States. The 
masses of the American people would see no reason why Cuba 
should not be "annexed" if Hawaii was, especially as the 
people of Cuba might not object, as do a majority in Hawaii. 
It is for Congress to prevent the spread of this microbe and thus 
prove the wisdom of the words of the late President Garfield, 
who opposed Plawaiian annexation. He said — 

" I wish to state distinctly on the general question of an- 
''nexation of out-lying islands or territory — except in the 
" North, and I make an exception there — that I trust we have 
" seen the last of annexation, and in this remark I include 
" the whole group of the West India Islands and the whole of 



23 



" the Mexican territory contiguous to the United States, in- 
habited as it is by a portion of the Latin races, strangely 
" mixed and degenerated by their mixture with native races ; 
" a population and a territory that naturally enfeebles man ; 

a population and a territory that I earnestly hope may never 
"be made an integral part of the people and a territory of 
the United States. We occupy a portion of that great 
" northern zone which girdles the world and which has been 
" the theater of the greatest achievements of civilization, es- 
pecially in the history of the Anglo-Saxon races ; but should 
we extend our possessions into the tropical (Hawaiian) 
" belt, we would weaken the power of our people and governjuenf' ! 

And why? Because while the English may have been will- 
ing to grab islands, she never allows the people thereof rep- 
resentation in her Parliament, but with us the moment we 
"annex" such territory, M*' question of representation arises. 
There is no precedent in our history for the " annexation " 
of distant islands and their incorporation into our Union 
as States. The scheme is not to hold Hawaii long as a 
territory ! We want no rotten boroughs, especially when 
they lie 2,100 miles away, peopled as this one is with "con- 
tract" laborers, coolies, lepers, etc., numbering in 1890 about 
90,000, only 13,000 being of European descent, of which 
1,928 only were Americans, who polled only 637 votes out of 
a total of 13,593. (See House Ex. Doc. i, Part i, p. 598, 
53d, 3d.) 

In what respect have those now in power in Hawaii 
strengthened their moral right to cede the islands to the 
United States, since the treaty of 1893 was withdrawn from 
the Senate? 

The erection of an oligarchy in Hawaii since 1893 ; its sub- 
stitution for the "Provisional Government" has weakened 
rather than strengthened the so-called Dole government. An 
oligarchy is no improvement over a limited or constitutional 
monarchy ! Going through the idle ceremony of adopting a 
"constitution" at the hands of 37 men — controlled by the 
same persons or influences which under our flag and forces 
upset the lawful Hawaiian authority, adds no moral force to 
the original position occupied. 

No delegates were chosen by the people, nor has the oli- 
garchic constitution ever been ratified ; the evidence of re- 
fusal to vote being indicative of the reverse of what we are 
asked to assume, as it also overthrows the Secretary's as- 
sumption. The so-called "legislature" of 1896 7 was not 
chosen by the people — who were disfranchised, only a very 
few of those who could conscientiously vote having exercised 
the suffrage. Hawaii is the despotism of the few. Four or five 



24 



thousand persons are seeking — for selfish political and pe- 
cuniary advantage, to rule 109,000. The republic of the 
United States does not rest upon any such basis as that the 
few and the rich should govern as against the majority ! That 
is not a ''republic"; it is an aristocracy, a plutocracy, an 
oligarchy; the despotism of money. The fear of that is what 
the American people are contesting to-day ; trusts and com- 
binations that seek to control all the business interests and 
thereby the political affairs of the country ! How can any 
political party in the United States lend such a scheme coun- 
tenance in Hawaii — by annexation ? It would be a dangerous 
experiment. 

In his letter accompanying the pending treaty, Secretary 
Sherman frankly intimates that there was grave doubt of the 
authority and potver of those from Hawaii who signed that 
treaty of 1893, to make a cession of the islands. The Sec- 
retary proceeds to excuse the present treaty upon an assump- 
tion ; to wit, that what was a territory in 1893 is now an es- 
tablished government — a "republic" approaching the United 
States as an equal ! A self-constituted oligarchy maintained 
in power by the presence of our war ships and the refusal of 
the people to take a test qz.\\s. and to vote — pending the dis- 
posal of their appeals to our government for justice, in no 
wise sustains the double assumption of the venerable Secretary 
that Hawaii is either a "republic" or that she approaches 
the United States as an equal. The language of the Secre- 
tary clearly indicates that some excuse was deemed necessary 
for this second treaty effort. In view of his past utterances 
the present attitude of the Secretary himself in approval of 
this treaty was evidently regarded so manifestly inconsistent 
that he resorted to an interview, in which he was made to say 
that the "annexation" of Hawaii is "exceptional." In his 
Recollections, however, we find him saying — 

"I hope that our people will be content with internal 
" growth, and avoid the complications of foreign acquisitions. 
" Our family of States is already large enough to create em- 
" barrassment in the Senate; and a republic should not hold 
" dependent provinces or possessions. Every new acquisition 
" will create embarrassments. * * * if my life is pro- 
" longed I will do all I can to add to the strength and pros- 
" perity of the United States, but nothing to extend its limits 
"or to add new dangers by acquisition of foreign territory,'' 

The attempt of the Secretary to escape the logical conclu- 
sion which this broad line of remark emphasizes and on which 
all of our great men have always stood, must fail. 

Mr. Jefferson, in a letter written to President Madison, 
April 27, 1809, said — 



25 



'•'It will be objected to our receiving Cuba that no limit 

can then be drawn to our future acquisitions. Cuba can be 

defended by us without a navy ; and //zzV develops the principle 
"which ought to limit our views. Nothing should ever be 
" accepted which would require a navy to defend it.'' 5 Jeffer- 
son's Works, 443. 

Secretary Frelinghuysen, in a note to Mr. Langston, dated 
June 20, 1883, says — 

"The policy of this Government, as declared on many oc- 
" casions in the past, has tended toward avoidance of posses- 
" sions disconnected from the main continent.'" 

In 1884, he said to the same Minister — 

"A conviction that a fixed policy, dating back to the origin 
"of our constitutional Government, was considered to make 
" it inexpedient to attempt territorial aggrandizement which 
" would require maintenance by a naval force in excess of any 
" yet provided for our national uses, has led this Government 
**to decline territorial acquisitions. Even as simple coaling- 
" stations, stick territorial acquisitions would involve responsibility 
" beyond their utility. The United States has never deemed it 
" needful to their national life to maintain impregnable fort- 
" resses along the world's highways of commerce." 

From all these expressions — perfectly consistent and plain, 
how is it possible to intelligently assert that our early and 
continuous policy has looked to the eventual "annexation" 
of the Hawaiian Islands or any other colonial possessions ? 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




0 003 909 040 5 



^LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

i 0 003 909 0IP 5 *^# 



METAL EDGE, INC. 2008 PH 7.5 TO 9.5 RAT. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




0 003 909 040 5 • 



METAL EDGE, INC. 2008 PH 7.5 TO 9.5 RA.T. 



